RE: can we please define a face for compile.el mouseover?

[Drew Adams]

> >> > Can we please define a face to be used for the `mouse-face' 
> >> > property in the `compile.el' code?
> >>
> >> Why do you want a different mouse-face in compile.el than 
> >> elsewhere?
> >
> > I want users to _be able_ to customize mouseover appearance
> > differently in one context from another.  I don't want to _require_
> > them to use different faces any more than I want to require them to
> > use the same face (the case today, and not even customizable).
> 
> I understand, the question is about *you* as a user.

No, you apparently do not understand.  It is not about me.
Or you.  We have different views of users and customizing faces.

> > In my own case, I want mouseover in compilation/grep buffers to just
> > underline the text.  But I generally want mouseover to use face
> > `highlight' elsewhere.
> 
> So, can you explain why?

I did.  Both in my last reply and previously.

When mouse-face highlighting is on a full line I find simple underlining better
than a flashy background.  That's my preference, but the point is that mouseover
highlighting on a long line has a different effect visually than it does on a
short name or a button.

It's about different classes of text that are highlighted - different use
contexts.  I mentioned (a) short text such as names, (b) long text such as table
rows and code lines, (c) buttons, and (d) mode-line constructs (treated
generally as buttons, but worth treating as a separate case - as they in fact
are).

There are perhaps other common classes, but those are the ones where I see a use
for a separately customizable face.  Today, the _only_ customizable mouseover
face is for (d).  And the only additional one I explicitly requested is for
compile.el.

> Also, is that really the only case where you
> want mouse-face to look different?

No.  See what I wrote, including just above.  Mouseover is already different for
the mode line.  And that's a good thing.

> > Users should be able to do it by _customizing_ the particular face
> > used for mouseover in the particular context.  Why complicate things
> > unnecessarily?  One might be able to use face remapping here and
> > there all over the place to simulate face customization, but why?
> 
> Because adding umpteen customization variables for all the cases where
> some user might want to change a face makes no sense.

No one said anything about adding umpteen variables (or faces, ahem).  And no
one said anything about adding such for every user who might want to change a
face.  There is no call for hyperbole.

> So if there's a good reason why this particular case is likely to
> happen to many users, a customization variable might be justified, but 
> otherwise having a generic solution (e.g. face-remapping) seems quite
> sufficient.

Sigh.  Same song you've sung previously to defend hard-coding `highlight'...